Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Write a Constitution

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
    I never said it was supposed to be easy, but "large super-majority" may not be obtainable on literally anything in this country. Less rant, please.
    I once came across the idea that not only all statutes should require a super-majority, but even further: that a past statutes should be repeal-able if support drops below super-majority. I think it might be a good idea. Lack of super-majority support could be taken as evidence that it isn't a good statute.

    The basic matters of justice (what through millennia has been the core purpose of government) I should think would easily and consistently obtain large super-majority support: e.g. laws against murder, battery, rape, theft, vandalism, fraud.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Joel View Post
      I once came across the idea that not only all statutes should require a super-majority, but even further: that a past statutes should be repeal-able if support drops below super-majority. I think it might be a good idea. Lack of super-majority support could be taken as evidence that it isn't a good statute.

      The basic matters of justice (what through millennia has been the core purpose of government) I should think would easily and consistently obtain large super-majority support: e.g. laws against murder, battery, rape, theft, vandalism, fraud.
      so you have to go back and revote on every law all the time?

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
        so you have to go back and revote on every law all the time?
        There may be various procedural ways to deal with that. Some possibilities:

        It could be that all laws have an expiration date and auto-expire if not renewed. U.S. Congress frequently does that kind of thing.

        It could be that there is a re-vote only if it is requested by a large enough minority of representatives. A request by a sole representative could be ignored as a likely waste of everyone's time. But if a certain minimum number of requesters is reached, it would indicate a possibility that super-majority support might fail. So you would likely never have a vote on, say, whether to keep murder illegal.


        For advocates of limited government, the first of those two possibilities has a side advantage that it may limit the size of the legal code, in practice, due to representatives' limited time. It also forces a review of stupid old statutes, as opposed to the modern system where hardly anything is ever repealed.

        Or maybe you could have additional elected offices whose sole job is to go through the legal code and find statutes for the legislative house(s) to re-vote on.

        We might be able to brainstorm other ideas.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          Is it irony or hypocrisy that you're attempting to use calculated contempt to shame me into changing my behavior?
          You're failing to distinguish between contempt of behavior and contempt of a person. I'm displaying contempt for your behavior, explaining why, and asking you to reconsider it.

          Your display of contempt regarding Starlight, however, doesn't serve any useful purpose. Since he didn't provoke you in this thread, I see no good reason for it.

          You may still disagree with my opinion. And if you do, that's fine. At least I tried.
          "If you believe, take the first step, it leads to Jesus Christ. If you don't believe, take the first step all the same, for you are bidden to take it. No one wants to know about your faith or unbelief, your orders are to perform the act of obedience on the spot. Then you will find yourself in the situation where faith becomes possible and where faith exists in the true sense of the word." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by myth View Post
            You're failing to distinguish between contempt of behavior and contempt of a person.
            No I'm not. Dimbulb has a long history of contemptible behavior at tWeb.
            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
            Than a fool in the eyes of God


            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Joel View Post
              There may be various procedural ways to deal with that. Some possibilities:

              It could be that all laws have an expiration date and auto-expire if not renewed. U.S. Congress frequently does that kind of thing.

              It could be that there is a re-vote only if it is requested by a large enough minority of representatives. A request by a sole representative could be ignored as a likely waste of everyone's time. But if a certain minimum number of requesters is reached, it would indicate a possibility that super-majority support might fail. So you would likely never have a vote on, say, whether to keep murder illegal.


              For advocates of limited government, the first of those two possibilities has a side advantage that it may limit the size of the legal code, in practice, due to representatives' limited time. It also forces a review of stupid old statutes, as opposed to the modern system where hardly anything is ever repealed.

              Or maybe you could have additional elected offices whose sole job is to go through the legal code and find statutes for the legislative house(s) to re-vote on.

              We might be able to brainstorm other ideas.
              You are advocating for more bureaucracy instead of less.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                You are advocating for more bureaucracy instead of less.
                Perhaps. How do you define bureaucracy? I've always thought of it as unelected, hierarchical agencies/bureaus, such as all those in the executive branch of the U.S. federal government, making policy decisions. That I would eliminate, and require all legislating to be done by the legislature.

                If by bureaucracy you mean the existence of procedures in the legislature that may put checks/balances on, or otherwise slow down, the legislature, I wouldn't see that as a bad thing. Conservatives especially should see that as a good thing.

                But all legislative houses already have procedures for deciding which things to bring to a full vote of the house and when. Most bills never get voted on. I assume because there are more bills introduced than the full legislature has time to debate. Legislatures already do sometimes vote on whether to repeal a statute. Thus the process for deciding whether to re-vote on a statute could be the same or very similar to existing procedures. Or we can brainstorm different procedures.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Joel View Post
                  Perhaps. How do you define bureaucracy? I've always thought of it as unelected, hierarchical agencies/bureaus, such as all those in the executive branch of the U.S. federal government, making policy decisions. That I would eliminate, and require all legislating to be done by the legislature.

                  If by bureaucracy you mean the existence of procedures in the legislature that may put checks/balances on, or otherwise slow down, the legislature, I wouldn't see that as a bad thing. Conservatives especially should see that as a good thing.

                  But all legislative houses already have procedures for deciding which things to bring to a full vote of the house and when. Most bills never get voted on. I assume because there are more bills introduced than the full legislature has time to debate. Legislatures already do sometimes vote on whether to repeal a statute. Thus the process for deciding whether to re-vote on a statute could be the same or very similar to existing procedures. Or we can brainstorm different procedures.
                  In this case I define it as "more government" - you are making more paperwork and red tape for them to do, meaning more arguing, more committees, more clerks, more money being spent, more, more, more -- just to keep up with old laws, over and over.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    In this case I define it as "more government" - you are making more paperwork and red tape for them to do, meaning more arguing, more committees, more clerks, more money being spent, more, more, more -- just to keep up with old laws, over and over.
                    As I said, it doesn't have to be any different in that respect. The core of my proposal is just that whenever there is a vote to repeal/keep an existing statute, it never requires a majority or super-majority to repeal. Rather, in such a vote, it would always take a super-majority to keep the law. Whether to change the procedures regarding whether to vote on repeal of any statute is a secondary question. Such procedures could be kept as they are. I suggested a few possibilities for procedural changes. None of them is required.


                    If we were to change those procedures, I agree with your point that we don't want it to result in overall more cost, say by hiring more clerks. In any discussion of ideas for changing such procedures we'd want want to consider that and the following:

                    - The existing cost of running a legislature in a modern governments is a tiny fraction of government budgets. If new procedures caused marginally more legislature costs, but acted as a check on legislature (e.g. it became infeasible to maintain a large legal code or giant government projects above a certain size or complexity) such that the total size and cost of government were smaller, then it would be an overall win for advocates of small government.

                    - Personally, my complaint with big government is when it means greater interference with the peoples' lives (e.g. commanding people to do things or forbidding them from doing things, confiscating their money through taxation, increasing the cost of peoples' compliance with the law, increasing peoples' fear of running afoul of an increasingly unknowable legal code). I'm not much concerned if it means procedural changes/additions within the government that create a greater hindrance to the government expanding its interference in our lives.

                    - More work to maintain a legal code doesn't necessarily mean more work will be done. If the legislature is fixed-size and they have limited time to debate and vote on things, then it could mean that it limits what they can do. The legal code may be practically limited to a certain size. Legislators may have to prioritize what things will be in the legal code. (This may vary based on what procedural change(s) we're talking about. Perhaps we could come up with procedural changes that would be more likely to have such effects, if desired.)

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Joel View Post
                      As I said, it doesn't have to be any different in that respect. The core of my proposal is just that whenever there is a vote to repeal/keep an existing statute, it never requires a majority or super-majority to repeal. Rather, in such a vote, it would always take a super-majority to keep the law. Whether to change the procedures regarding whether to vote on repeal of any statute is a secondary question. Such procedures could be kept as they are. I suggested a few possibilities for procedural changes. None of them is required.


                      If we were to change those procedures, I agree with your point that we don't want it to result in overall more cost, say by hiring more clerks. In any discussion of ideas for changing such procedures we'd want want to consider that and the following:

                      - The existing cost of running a legislature in a modern governments is a tiny fraction of government budgets. If new procedures caused marginally more legislature costs, but acted as a check on legislature (e.g. it became infeasible to maintain a large legal code or giant government projects above a certain size or complexity) such that the total size and cost of government were smaller, then it would be an overall win for advocates of small government.

                      - Personally, my complaint with big government is when it means greater interference with the peoples' lives (e.g. commanding people to do things or forbidding them from doing things, confiscating their money through taxation, increasing the cost of peoples' compliance with the law, increasing peoples' fear of running afoul of an increasingly unknowable legal code). I'm not much concerned if it means procedural changes/additions within the government that create a greater hindrance to the government expanding its interference in our lives.

                      - More work to maintain a legal code doesn't necessarily mean more work will be done. If the legislature is fixed-size and they have limited time to debate and vote on things, then it could mean that it limits what they can do. The legal code may be practically limited to a certain size. Legislators may have to prioritize what things will be in the legal code. (This may vary based on what procedural change(s) we're talking about. Perhaps we could come up with procedural changes that would be more likely to have such effects, if desired.)

                      You be nuts, Joel.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        You be nuts, Joel.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Joel View Post
                          Don't worry. I'm in full agreement with you.
                          I'm not here anymore.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                            Don't worry. I'm in full agreement with you.
                            Shouldn't that in fact be a good reason to worry?

                            I'm always still in trouble again

                            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                            Comment

                            Related Threads

                            Collapse

                            Topics Statistics Last Post
                            Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                            16 responses
                            108 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post One Bad Pig  
                            Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                            53 responses
                            307 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post Mountain Man  
                            Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                            25 responses
                            111 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post rogue06
                            by rogue06
                             
                            Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                            33 responses
                            196 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post Roy
                            by Roy
                             
                            Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                            84 responses
                            357 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post JimL
                            by JimL
                             
                            Working...
                            X